Last month the White House presented a 36-page outline of the U.S. position toward trade with China (full pdf below). White House National Trade Council and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro delivers a presentation to discuss that report. Very well worth watching: . Report below:

Over the years I’ve found some useful arguments against the claims and clichés of mass immigration. I’ve field-tested these refutations on a number of occasions, and I can testify that they work. Here are some examples.

Claim: We’re a nation of immigrants.

Reply: Our heritage of immigration is just one facet of our national identity. First and foremost, we’re a nation of Americans. As a free people we have the right to regulate immigration for the benefit of our national interest.

Claim: The descendants of immigrants cannot in good conscience keep out new immigrants.

Reply: This is like saying that a private business, staffed by people who were once job applicants, is morally obligated to hire all new applicants. This is ridiculous because the purpose of a business is to sell products and make money, and it must gear its hiring program to meet those ends. Similarly, a nation exits to serve its national interests—and it should regulate immigration by that standard.

Claim: Immigration has been good for America; we need it to keep benefitting us. Immigrants after all built America.

Reply: Certainly immigration can help America, but to say that it is always good, regardless of quantity or quality, is absurd. It’s like saying that alcohol is always beneficial because a daily glass of red wine will improve a person’s health—and from that observation going on to claim that two bottles of whiskey a day will improve one’s health even more.

The specific question to ask is whether our massive level of immigration today is helpful or harmful. In the past a high level of immigration helped to populate and develop a vast and undeveloped country. But today our nation is populated and built. So why do we need to keep on admitting so many builders?

Claim: We have the moral duty to be a haven for the world’s poor and downtrodden.

Reply: Morality does not require us to do what is impossible and self-destructive. World population now increases at the rate of about 80 million a year, with most of this increase in poor and relatively poor countries.1 Now suppose we decided to admit one-tenth of that number a year, eight million, a total about six times higher than our current annual intake of legal and illegal immigrants. With immigration causing problems now, imagine what stress that increase would cause, one which would add 100 million people in little more than a decade.

For most people in the world, prosperity is something they will have to create at home. If America remains strong, we can provide them with assistance. But if we are overwhelmed, we will lack the capacity to help anyone.

Claim: We live in a global society, so immigration restrictions are outdated and unnecessary.

Reply: To find out if the person making this statement is really willing to stand behind it, pose to him some facts, and then ask a question.

The facts: A Gallup International poll a few years back found that 150 million people would like to move to America.2 Under our immigration law, if they came here, they could petition to bring their spouses, minor children, and other relatives. Immigrants bring in an average of 3.5 relatives.3 Thus if we completely opened our gates, we could expect more than 500 million new arrivals, a number which would swamp our current population of 325 million.

The question: Do you support admission of all these people with no restriction or delay? If the advocate says yes, his lack of practicality and ideological obsession become clear to any sensible person. If he says no, congratulate him for joining the restrictionist side. The argument now is simply over where to set the limits, not whether restriction is necessary.

Claim: Diversity is our strength. All cultures are equal and equally enriching.

Reply: To say diversity is strength is just another version of the fallacy, already noted, that because limited intake of alcohol (wine) can be good that binge drinking whiskey must be even better. With both alcohol and diversity, good cannot be discerned without reference to quantity and quality. Certainly we can enjoy the diversity of having a number of ethnic restaurants in a city. But that hardly means we should welcome profound cultural differences which threaten our national unity. Some diversity is good, but taken too far it is divisive and destructive.

The statement that “all cultures are equal and equally enriching” is one that flatly contradicts reality. In terms of things that nearly all people want, such as freedom and prosperity, it is manifestly clear that some cultures provide them far better than others. Western countries, including the United States, are a case in point. That’s why so many people around the world want to move to them. If all cultures were truly equal, those people could find the satisfactions they want within their own cultures without leaving home.

Claim: This land belongs to the American Indians. Only they have the right to set immigration policy.

Reply: Whoever truly believes this claim, should be the first to call for an end to immigration. Why allow more foreign thieves to come and take Indian land?

Of course no one really believes this claim. It’s just a rhetorical cheap shot to denigrate immigration control by manipulating guilt about historic injustices done to Indians. Those were unfortunate, but dwelling on past moral failings should not keep us from living in the present and dealing with present realities.

Today American land belongs to Americans of all backgrounds, including American Indians. And as a democratic society, we have the right to decide what our future will be. Allowing guilt to paralyze our will to make necessary decisions about immigration is gross irresponsibility, a patent evil which will jeopardize our country’s future. We can make up what we owe to Indians by treating them justly as citizens today. ■

By The Social Contract Editors
Volume 28, Number 3 (Spring 2018)Issue theme: “The SPLC File – An Exclusive Report on the Southern Poverty Law Center”

Project Exploration co-founder and Executive Director Gabrielle Lyon, who received a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science Mentoring during a White House ceremony on January 6, 2010, served as a Fellow with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance project. Lyon interviewed Bill Ayers for the Teaching Tolerance site in 1998 [An Unconditional Embrace, Spring 1998].

In the interview, Ayers, a former Weather Underground fugitive and self-described communist, is portrayed merely “as a civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher and author” and as an educator who has “developed a rich vision of teaching that interweaves passion, responsibility, and self-reflection.” Nowhere in the interview is there any mention of his extremist ideological views
or militant terrorist activities with a group of revolutionaries that bombed American installations.

Lyon asked Ayers about the effectiveness of the educational system as a vehicle to bring about “social change.” Ayers replied:

Because I began teaching right after my release from jail, I’ve always linked teaching to social justice. There’s a whole group of teachers who came out of the ’60s who asked themselves, “What can I do with my life that would be consistent within an agenda of social change and hopefulness towards a more humane social order?”The most common choice has been to teach; teaching is seen as an extension of their involvement in social change.

The irony isn’t simply that the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance website praises the work of someone who organized bomb-wielding revolutionarie— tolerantdomestic terrorists?—but that the SPLC frequently advises law enforcement agencies and heavily influenced the now discredited DHS report on the threat of “right- wing terrorism.” Is it really a good idea to have an organization that promotes the work of a former fugitive from justice—one who is unapologetic about his violent past, once on the run for his role in bombing military installations—advise law enforcement agencies and train police officers on domestic terrorism?

Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character, or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions, or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and “insensitivity” or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized, and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group, and in that it consists of several characteristic elements.

Ritual Defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any particular document or scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of elements, as in a ritual.

The elements of Ritual Defamation are these:

• In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a particular taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with a forbidden attitude, opinion, or belief. It is not necessary that he “do” anything about it or undertake any particular course of action, only that he engage in some form of communication or expression.

• The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to the particular attitudes, opinions, or beliefs expressed or implied. Character assassination is its primary tool.

• An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed,only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and consideration of the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression.

• The victim is often somebody in the public eye—someone who is vulnerable to public opinion—although perhaps in a very modest way. It could be a schoolteacher, writer, businessman, minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen. Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation.

• An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student, other students will be called upon, and so on.

• In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim must be dehumanized to the extent that he becomes identical with the offending attitude, opinion, or belief, and in a manner which distorts it to the point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a victim who is defamed as a “subversive” will be identified with the worst images of subversion, such as espionage, terrorism, or treason. A victim defamed as a “pervert” will be identified with the worst images of perversion, including child molestation and rape. A victim defamed as a “racist” or “anti-Semite” will be identified with the worst images of racism or anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers.

• Also to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure and humiliation on the victim from every quarter, including family and friends. If the victim has school-aged children, he may be taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If employed, the victim may be fired from his job. If the victim belongs to clubs or associations, other members may be urged to expel him.

• Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of being misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense for a politically incorrect value, opinion, or belief is interpreted as defiance and only compounds the problem. Ritual defamation is often not necessarily an issue of being wrong or incorrect, but rather of “insensitivity” and failing to observe social taboos.

An interesting aspect of ritual defamation as a practice is its universality. It is not specific to any value, opinion, or belief or to any group or subculture. It may be used for or against any political, ethnic, national, or religious group. It may, for example, be used by anti-Semites against Jews or Jews against anti-Semites, by rightists against leftists or leftists against rightists, and so on.

The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity to intimidate and terrorize. It embraces some elements of primitive superstitious belief, as in a “curse” or “hex.” It plays into the subconscious fear most people have of being abandoned or rejected by the tribe or by society and being cut off from social and psychological support systems.

The weakness of ritual defamation lies in its tendency toward overkill and in its obvious maliciousness. Occasionally a ritual defamation will fail because of poor planning and failure to correctly judge the vulnerability of the victim or because its viciousness inadvertently generates sympathy.

It is important to recognize and identify the patterns of a ritual defamation. Like all propaganda and disinformation campaigns, it is accomplished primarily through the manipulation of words and symbols.

It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate, and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use.

Ricardo Duchesne, a professor at the University of New Brunswick in Atlantic Canada, is among a very small number of conservative or traditionalist professors in the Canadian academy today. Duchesne is virtually unique in his principled opposition to Canada’s multiculturalism and mass immigration policies. Among his other books are The Uniqueness of Western Civilization(2011) and Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age (2017). Duchesne is the founder and one of the chief contributors to the Council of European Canadians website (www.eurocanadian.ca).

Canada in Decay offers a well-written and tightly argued account of the ongoing drastic course that is changing the face of Canada. In the book’s preface, Duchesne states forthrightly,

As late as 1971, when Prime Minister [Pierre] Trudeau announced multiculturalism as an official government policy, over 96 percent of Canada’s population was European in origin.

Today, the proportion of Canadians with a European ethnic origin has declined to less than 80 percent, with non-whites already making up close to half of the residents of Greater Toronto and Metro Vancouver. In less than two decades immigrants and second-generation children of immigrants will account for almost 50 percent of the population. In less than a century Canada will be 20 percent white, 65 percent non-white, and 15 percent of mixed race.

Duchesne explains his provocative title:

[B]y “ethnocide of Euro-Canadians,” I mean what the United Nations also means by “cultural genocide” and “ethnocide,” that is, the deliberate destruction of the ethnic heritage of a people. I do not mean the deliberate killing or extermination of Euro-Canadians, which is also part of the definition of “ethnocide.” I mean the deprivation of Euro-Canadians of their integrity as a people with a distinctive culture and ethnic identity in possession of their own nation-state.

Duchesne demonstrates that the idea that Canada has always been “a nation of immigrants” is palpably false. The British and French were not immigrants, but “pioneers, settlers, and discoverers.” In the case of the French, from an initial population of 10,000 settlers, the rapid birthrate had led to a population of 70,000 in 1760. Thereafter, there was near zero immigration from France, and the population increased solely due to high rates of fertility, reaching four million by the 1950s. Duchesne also writes about the Acadians, a small and unfortunate French group in Canada. The main initial wave of Loyalist English settlers numbered about 50,000. The English population also increased rapidly, and immigration in the nineteenth century came mostly from the British Isles. As Duchesne notes frequently, Canada was still 96 percent European as late as 1971.

Duchesne dissects the leading theorists of Canada’s “immigrant multiculturalism” insanity, notably Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor. The central contradiction of these theorists is that, while they claim minorities require a community and group-values, they deny that the majority has any claim to a communal cultural identity.

Duchesne then looks at the weakness of some conventional conservative and liberal criticisms of multiculturalism, namely those promoting individualism and assimilation. The ideas of Leo Strauss and his disciples are criticized, for their universalism and repudiation of the actual cultural and religious (Christianity) traditions of the West. Duchesne criticizes Janet Ajzenstat, who has tried to re-interpret Canada’s founding in 1867 as merely a “political nationality,” removing its ethnic and Tory aspects. Towards the end of Part Three, Duchesne has a fascinating short section about the debate on Oxycontin, which seems to buttress ideas of “natural in-group behaviors.” Liav Orgad’s The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights (2015) also gets scrutinized. While the message of the book is welcome, it is not powerful enough to deal with the challenges now facing the West, notably the incredible demographic surge of Africa in the coming century.

In Part Four, “Canada Spiraling Out of Control,” Duchesne looks at how the “ethnic liberalism” of an earlier Canada, where there were no qualms about proclaiming Canada as English and French, was conceptually transmogrified into the current-day “immigrant multiculturalism.” He bases his argument largely on Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, claiming that liberalism has an underdeveloped sense of the truly political.

Duchesne traces the long process of gradual decline from “ethnic liberalism” to ever more intense notions of “immigrant multiculturalism.” He does say that World War II was a great watershed. In many people’s minds, all forms of ethnic nationalism are synonymous with the totalitarian policies of National Socialist Germany. Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson’s Immigration Regulations of 1967, where the so-called points system was brought in, was a major step towards changing Canada’s traditional immigration patterns. Pearson was followed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who launched “an assault on bicultural nationalism,” declaring Canada a “multicultural society” in 1971. In 1982, Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into Canada’s constitutional structure. It essentially enshrined virtually his entire agenda, as the highest law of the land. Section 27 of the Charter states:

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Also, Section 15 of the Charter subsection 1 proclaims the equality of everyone before the law. Subsection 2, however, says that the government has the constitutional right

to create special programs aimed at improving the situation of individuals who are members of groups that have historically experienced discrimination in Canada….

Perhaps some of these developments might have been tempered had there been a more genuinely conservative opposition.

However, as Duchesne writes about Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative Party Prime Minister, 1984-1993), he

was the most ardent promoter of multiculturalism, mass immigration, and a global identity for Canada. It was under his government that mass scale immigration from non-European sources on a continuous basis irrespective of the economic needs of the Canadian working class was fully implemented. It was under his insistence that multiculturalism would be enforced into “all aspects of Canadian society” and that Canada would be sold to the world as a business place with a global, not a national, identity dedicated to the enhancement of racial diversity. The Conservatives had come to realize that cultural Marxism was coterminous with global capitalism and that selling Canada to the world for its humanitarian diversity was a great image to solidify global capitalism in Canada.

In 1987, there arose the Reform Party, co-founded by Preston Manning. This Western Canadian-based protest party became a country-wide party by 1991.

In 1991, it stated its opposition to “any immigration…designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada.” The Reform Party was forced to back off from this statement after intense accusations that it was harboring racist and xenophobic ideas.

According to Duchesne, the Reform Party movement was essentially defeated in Canada, with the arising of the more moderate Canadian Alliance, and then the creation of the new Conservative Party, where very few of the old Reform ideas persisted.

As far as the Stephen Harper Conservatives go (Harper was the Conservative Party PM, 2006-2015), Duchesne offers this assessment:

Yet, in the end, Kenney, and the Harper government, more than ever, would make a habit of boasting about how their conservative government had sustained immigration levels that made “Canada the largest per capita receiver of immigrants in the entire world,” and how the immigrants it brought deserved to be admired as truly Canadian for having “a much higher incidence of post-secondary degrees than the Canadian population at large.”

In October 2015, the Liberals came roaring back with a strong majority in the federal Parliament, under the leadership of Justin Trudeau (Pierre’s son). Among Justin’s most well-known statements is that Canada is a “post-national” state. Duchesne says that this phrase signifies the repudiation of even the thinnest forms of civic nationalism.

Prof. Duchesne’s work can certainly lead to disquieting reflections on the possible future of Canada. From beginnings that certainly appeared to be auspicious, Canada has slipped into very negative directions. The question of “what is to be done?” certainly looms large, but Duchesne has little concrete to suggest.

If there is one shortcoming to Prof. Duchesne’s otherwise fine work, it is the lack of sufficient attention to the so-called “white ethnics” in Canada. Much of the impetus behind the initial adoption of multiculturalism came from “white ethnics,” notably the Ukrainian-Canadians. The term largely meant a recognition of other European (non-English and non-French groups), especially Eastern and Southern Europeans. Nevertheless, it was quickly transmogrified in the general culture to mean “visible minorities.”

Also, it is worth pointing out that the English are still very prominent in many aspects of Canadian life. It could be argued that they remain so on the basis of ideological affinity rather than ethnic solidarity. They are the most liberal, most politically correct group in Canada.

Prof. Duchesne’s book is certainly a strong challenge to the currently regnant notions of multiculturalism and mass immigration in Canada. Wide reading of this book by Canadians could be the first step toward a better future for Canada.

Over the years I’ve found some useful arguments against the claims and clichés of mass immigration. I’ve field-tested these refutations on a number of occasions, and I can testify that they work. Here are some examples.

Claim: We’re a nation of immigrants.

Reply: Our heritage of immigration is just one facet of our national identity. First and foremost, we’re a nation of Americans. As a free people we have the right to regulate immigration for the benefit of our national interest.

Claim:The descendants of immigrants cannot in good conscience keep out new immigrants.

Reply: This is like saying that a private business, staffed by people who were once job applicants, is morally obligated to hire all new applicants. This is ridiculous because the purpose of a business is to sell products and make money, and it must gear its hiring program to meet those ends. Similarly, a nation exits to serve its national interests—and it should regulate immigration by that standard.

Claim: Immigration has been good for America; we need it to keep benefitting us. Immigrants after all built America.

Reply:Certainly immigration can help America, but to say that it is always good, regardless of quantity or quality, is absurd. It’s like saying that alcohol is always beneficial because a daily glass of red wine will improve a person’s health—and from that observation going on to claim that two bottles of whiskey a day will improve one’s health even more.

The specific question to ask is whether our massive level of immigration today is helpful or harmful. In the past a high level of immigration helped to populate and develop a vast and undeveloped country. But today our nation is populated and built. So why do we need to keep on admitting so many builders?

Claim: We have the moral duty to be a haven for the world’s poor and downtrodden.

Reply: Morality does not require us to do what is impossible and self-destructive. World population now increases at the rate of about 80 million a year, with most of this increase in poor and relatively poor countries.1 Now suppose we decided to admit one-tenth of that number a year, eight million, a total about six times higher than our current annual intake of legal and illegal immigrants. With immigration causing problems now, imagine what stress that increase would cause, one which would add 100 million people in little more than a decade.

For most people in the world, prosperity is something they will have to create at home. If America remains strong, we can provide them with assistance. But if we are overwhelmed, we will lack the capacity to help anyone.

Claim: We live in a global society, so immigration restrictions are outdated and unnecessary.

Reply: To find out if the person making this statement is really willing to stand behind it, pose to him some facts, and then ask a question.

The facts: A Gallup International poll a few years back found that 150 million people would like to move to America.2 Under our immigration law, if they came here, they could petition to bring their spouses, minor children, and other relatives. Immigrants bring in an average of 3.5 relatives.3 Thus if we completely opened our gates, we could expect more than 500 million new arrivals, a number which would swamp our current population of 325 million.

The question: Do you support admission of all these people with no restriction or delay? If the advocate says yes, his lack of practicality and ideological obsession become clear to any sensible person. If he says no, congratulate him for joining the restrictionist side. The argument now is simply over where to set the limits, not whether restriction is necessary.

Claim: Diversity is our strength. All cultures are equal and equally enriching.

Reply: To say diversity is strength is just another version of the fallacy, already noted, that because limited intake of alcohol (wine) can be good that binge drinking whiskey must be even better. With both alcohol and diversity, good cannot be discerned without reference to quantity and quality. Certainly we can enjoy the diversity of having a number of ethnic restaurants in a city. But that hardly means we should welcome profound cultural differences which threaten our national unity. Some diversity is good, but taken too far it is divisive and destructive.

The statement that “all cultures are equal and equally enriching” is one that flatly contradicts reality. In terms of things that nearly all people want, such as freedom and prosperity, it is manifestly clear that some cultures provide them far better than others. Western countries, including the United States, are a case in point. That’s why so many people around the world want to move to them. If all cultures were truly equal, those people could find the satisfactions they want within their own cultures without leaving home.

Claim: This land belongs to the American Indians. Only they have the right to set immigration policy.

Reply: Whoever truly believes this claim, should be the first to call for an end to immigration. Why allow more foreign thieves to come and take Indian land?

Of course, no one really believes this claim. It’s just a rhetorical cheap shot to denigrate immigration control by manipulating guilt about historic injustices done to Indians. Those were unfortunate, but dwelling on past moral failings should not keep us from living in the present and dealing with present realities.

Today American land belongs to Americans of all backgrounds, including American Indians. And as a democratic society, we have the right to decide what our future will be. Allowing guilt to paralyze our will to make necessary decisions about immigration is gross irresponsibility, a patent evil which will jeopardize our country’s future. We can make up what we owe to Indians by treating them justly as citizens today. ■

Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton want the memo released?
Why did they dissolve the Clinton Foundation as soon as their criminality started to surface? And as soon as she lost the election?
Why is she so desperate?#POTUS#SchumerShutdown#WeThePeople

rollup

Don’t miss anything, subscribe to @pegchandler unrolls!

Your email:

Subscribe

You will be asked to connect with Twitter to confirm. We don’t send spam. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Makes sense when you realize a likely direct descent from the freak “Mengele” “[alleged ] Sado – Pedo John Podesta Is The Son Of Dr. Josef Mengele” #QAnon #nazi#paperclip

Rumor that Mengele was the infamous “Dr. Green” and that the real images of him [massive counterintel to substitute a double image which doesn’t resemble the original. ] were substituted with a gap-tooth goofy looking “Alfred E. Newman” lookalike. The original resembles Podesta

As much work put into it, at least, as what was done to obscure the Faul/ Paul replacement – ‘cept the two alleged likeness ascribed to the name “Mengele” are nothing alike.] The early images have been scrubbed. Also seemingly identical handwriting between “Mengele” & “Eichmann”

Dr.Troubador, analyst for Lebal Drocer, Inc., told reporters the [Wikileaks new cache] details how the CIA’s activities ended communism, [] “appointed” Vladimir Putin [carried] out similar coups across the world, & [] in U.S, proving once & for all that the CIA assassinated JFK.

This is why 2017 was labeled “Zero Year?” “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive But to be young was very heaven!”

“Rothschilds’ [cover of Economist magazine “Predictions”] for Trump = “Judgment” imgur.com/a/1wo4WThey believed “Judgment” would be against Prez rather than themselves. “Day when dead rise from graves” “Unveiling” of a Judgment Day was not planned? They mis-read the card.

1. For decades, many brave patriots have been researching, protesting, giving all of their sweat and tears and energy trying to help to alert the American people to what was happening in our great country.

2. Many have died trying to tell the tale. Many were ostracized and made to feel crazy. We cried ourselves to sleep trying to understand why people didn’t see.

3. Throughout the years, there have been many thousands who have lost hope. They had lost hope that there was any chance to save the Republic. It appeared the people would never take the step out of the Matrix. It appeared all was lost.

1. Hezbollah & the Iran deal : is Trump lining Obama up for charges of treason? Dont rule it out. Some thoughts.

2. Sessions DOJ has just opened a major investigation into the way the Obama administration protected Hezbollah within the USA. This is a massive development.

3. Reminder : Hizballah (Hezbollah) was listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department on 10/8/1997. It has been a fanatically anti-American organization from the start. Apart from AQ, it has murdered more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

Glenn Simpson & his Fusion GPS team suddenly changed the narrative a few weeks ago, began using their media allies to desperately begin selling a new story that the #SteeleDossier was *NOT* used in any way shape or form for any FISA warrant/s.

We got the comical claim that the actual trigger for the FBI’s investigation into Trump/Russia collusion was….Papadopolous having a drunk chat in a bar. They’ve been pushing that relentlessly for several weeks now.

Earlier, 1 of the Reps. that’s read the memo made the statement it will absolutely destroy the new ‘Papadopoulos narrative’ that Fusion has been using it’s media allies to pimp.

(1) I love the fact that @realDonaldTrump runs intellectual rings around his opponents, allowing them to sneer as he moves in for the kill. A photo from the White House taken on the first day of the shutdown

(2) Trump at his desk, wearing the same overcoat and cap.

(3) Trump meeting with senior staffers, wearing the same overcoat and cap. Everybody’s smiling and laughing except for him.

1. There’s a lot surfacing that suggests that #ReleaseTheMemowill produce the following rather devastating revelations about a massive criminal cabal leading all the way to the Oval Office. Let me give you a teaser of the memo here. #TheStorm #GreatAwakening#WeThePeople

2. It involves both the breach of the DNC emails, as well as the famous piss-gate dossier that has been at the heart of the entire #RussiaCollusion narrative from the start.

3. The memo will show that #SethRich, a Bernie-supporting DNC staffer, copied their emails and send them to #Wikileaks to blow the whistle on Hillary’s rigging of the DNC to destroy Sanders.

This past week it was confirmed DOD severed all ties with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), scrubbing SPLC training from DOD manuals.

In June of 2016, Understanding the Threat’s Vice President, Chris Gaubatz, testified before the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, headed by Senator Ted Cruz. Mr. Gaubatz outlined his experience conducting undercover research with Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Hamas is a U.S. state department designated terrorist organization, and the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gaubatz testified the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are no different than those of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda- to establish an global Islamic state under sharia.

His testimony was factual, citing his own undercover work, and evidence entered into the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history- the US vs Holy Land Foundation trial.

Sitting to Mr. Gaubatz’s right was the President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen.

Despite having been informed of their ties to the terrorist group Hamas, Cohen and the SPLC continue to support Hamas doing business as CAIR in a number of ways, including working to prevent Understanding the Threat (UTT) from being able to train law enforcement in cities across the nation.

The SPLC represents the “RED” (Marxist Movement) in the Red-Green axis, working hand in hand with jihadi groups, including CAIR, here in the United States to destroy our Constitutional Republic and overthrow our government.

UTT welcomes the Department of Defense’s decision as a long overdue step to cut SPLC completely out of the government.

Info

Topics

FAIR USE NOTICE
These pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, such material has been referenced to advance understanding of
political, human rights, ecological, economic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues.
This constitutes a "fair use" of any such material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.